Todd Gloria, Mayor
City of San Diego
202 C Street, 11th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
San Diego City Council
City of San Diego
202 C Street, 10th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
GRAND TRY
Countyof San Diego
550 Corporate Center
550 W. C Street, Suite 860
San Diego, CA 92101- 3513
619- 236-2020 FAX 619- 338- 8127
httr):// www. sdcounly. ce,gov/ qrandiu[ y
Ed Lopatin, Foreperson
June 1, 2023
Unified Port District Commission Board
Unified Port District
3165 PacificHighway
San Diego, CA 92101
See attachedmailinglist for additionalrespondents.
Re: Grand Jury Report— Governance of San Diego Bay and Its Tidal Lands andRegions Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
The2022/2023SanDiegoCountyGrandJuryherewithprovidesthereferencedreportfor your review and commentto the PresidingJudge of the SuperiorCourt in compliancewith the Penal Code of California § 933( c). This report was prepared pursuant to §925 and §925aof the Penal Code.
InaccordancewithPenalCode §933.05(f), acopyofthisreportisbeingprovidedtoaffected agenciesatleasttwoworkingdayspriortoitspublic -releaseandafter -beingapprovedbythePresiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Pleasenotethat §933.05(f) specifiesthatnoofficer, agency, department, orgoverningbody of a public agencyshall disclose anycontentsof the reportprior to its public release. Thisreportwill befiledwiththe Clerkofthe Courtandreleasedto the publiconJune 7, 2023.
Ed Lopatin, Foreperson
2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY
EL: ar
enc.
Attached Mailing List John McCann, Mayor Carolina Chavez, Councilmember Governance of SanDiego Rayand City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista s Tidal Lands and Regions Report 276 Fourth Ave 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 ` Chula Vista, CA 91910
Jose Preciado, Councilmember
City of Chula Vista
276. -.Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Paloma Aguirre, Mayor
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Matthew Leyba- Gonzalez,
Councilmember
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Mike Donovan, Councilmember
City of Coronado
1.825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Casey Tanaka, Councilmember
City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Marcus Bush, Councilmember
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Nora Vargas, Chairperson
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
1600 PacificHighway, Room335
San Diego, CA92101
Jim Desmond, Supervisor - District 5
San DiegoCounty Boardof Supervisors
1600 PacificHighway, Room335
San Diego, CA 92101
Alonso Gonzalez, Councilmember
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Carol Seabury, Councilmember
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Mitch McKay, Councilmember
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Carrie Downey, Councilmember
City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Ron Morrison, Mayor
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Jose Rodriguez, Councilmember
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Joel Anderson, Supervisor - District 2
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
1600 PacificHighway, Room335
San Diego, CA 92101
Andrea Cardenas, Councilmember
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Jack Fisher, Councilmember
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Richard Bailey,.Mayor
City of Coronado
1825 Strand. Way.
Coronado, CA 92118
John Duncan, Councilmember
City of Coronado.
1825 Strand Way..
Coronado, CA92118
Luz Molina, Councilmember
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Ditas Yamane, Councilmember
City of National City
1234 National City Blvd
National City, CA91950
Terra Lawson- Remer, Supervisor Dist. 3
San Diogo County Board of Supervisors
1600 PacificHighway, Room335
San Diego, CA 92101
Governance of San Diego Bay and Its
Tidal Lands and Regions
A Report by the
2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury
Filed June 7, 2023
GOVERNANCE OF SAN DIEGO BAY AND ITS TIDAL LANDS
AND REGIONS
SUMMARY
The2022/2023GrandJury (GrandJury) undertookaninvestigationof the SanDiego Unified Port District (PortDistrict), the Countyof SanDiegoandthe five Port Citiesof ChulaVista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, SanDiegoandNationalCity to assesshow theseorganizationsinteractaroundthe governanceof SanDiego Bay tidal landsandresources. This assessmentwas undertakenin response to a perception that the Port of San Diego and its unelected seven -member Board of Commissioners is not accountableto eitherthe electedofficials or theelectorateof its five membercitiesor the County of SanDiego, especiallyin theplanning, developmentandimplementationof projectsin thosecities.
ThePortDistrictis anindependentgovernmentalagencycreatedbytheStateof Californiaand approvedby votersin Chula Vista, Coronado,' ImperialBeach, NationalCity andSanDiegoin 1962 to managethe tidelandsandsubmergedlandsof SanDiego Bay.
Thisreportwill briefly reviewpreviousGrandJuryreportsonthePortDistrict andlook atits creation, governance, relationto Stateagencies, andfunding. The GrandJury will alsoinvestigateconflicts and issuessurroundingthe PortDistrict' s operationsin regardto the equitablerepresentationof residents ofthefivePortCitiesandtheirgoverningbodies, aswell astheresidentsoftheCountyof SanDiego anditsresidents. Finally, theGrandJurywill alsodiscussthePortDistrict'splanningprocessandhow itsproposedprojectshaveaffectedthefivePortCities, theCountyof SanDiegoandresidentsoftheseregions.
Thereport'srecommendationsincludeincreasingthePortDistrict' spublic participationand transparencyby:
Schedulingregularupdatesandpresentationsatpubliclynoticedopenmeetingsof thecity councils of its member cities;
Simplificationof thePortMasterPlansaroundthePortDistrictPlanningDistrictsfallingwithin eachof thePortCity'sjurisdictionalboundariesandthreeof theCounty's supervisorialdistricts; SubmittingthePortMasterPlan, andall futureupdatesandamendments, to therelevantcity council and County Supervisor for discussion and ratification; LobbyingtheCaliforniaStateLegislatureto introducelegislationenablingtheCountyof San Diego to assume oversight of the activities of the SanDiego Unified Port District and decisions of theBoardof PortCommissioners, andsharein thePortDist -riot'sdutyasguardianof the. public, trustin thetidal andsubmergedlandsof SanDiegoBay;
Dependingontheoutcomeof thelegislationrecommendedabove, exploringanalternateform of governancefor thePortDistrict, with participationfromthe CountyBoardof Supervisorsand elected officials of the five member cities;
Encourage a limit of two four- year terms that a Port Commissioner can serve; Includestafffrom eachof thefive citiesoneachof thePortDistrict's advisorycommittees; and Postmeetingminutesandagendasof eachof thePortDistrict's advisorycommitteeson-line. 1Whilethe 1962voteto approvecreationof thePortinvolvedtallyingthecombinedvotesof thefiveportcities, votersin the City of Coronadovoted against Proposition D by a marginof 3 to 1. 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)
INTRODUCTION
We can do whatever we want, right?" 2The words were spoken — and repeated several times-- by a commissionerof theSailDiegoUnifiedPoit Districtduringapublicweetingof theBoardof Poit Commissioners. A Commissioner went on to describe what was believed to be "the absolute sovereigntyof thisboardto makeanydecisionthatwewantfromthisdaisatanytime." s The commentwasmadeduringadiscussionof thechangesproposedforthePortDistrict'spolicyon Capital Improvement Projects, and while made in this specific context, seemed intended to characterizethe broad authority andperceivednatureof this organization — led by a seven -member unelectedboardof commissioners, largelyautonomous, self-governing, self-fundedandindependent of oversight by local electedofficials.
The2022-23 SanDiegoCountyGrandJury (GrandJury) is notalonein its concernoverthelackof oversight, transparencyandaccountability of an organizationwith suchfar reachingpower and jurisdiction. Overthelastseveraldecades, twoseparateSanDiegoCountyGrandJurieshavereached similar conclusions, the earliestbeingthe 1986-87GrandJury andmorerecentlythe 1997-98Grand Jury.
The 1986-87 GrandJury Reportconcluded, "An enterprise of the scope and importance of the Port Districtmustincludeastrongconcernfor communityrelations, publicinputandaccountability ... yet, inthepublic'smind, it conductsitselfasdoesaprivatecompany, responsibleonlyto itsstockholders.
Thefactisthatit is apubliccorporation, guardingapublictrustandspendingpublicmoney."4 Similarly, the synopsisof the 1997-98 GrandJuryreportconcludedthatthe sevencommissionersof thePortDistrict "areviewedasoperatingwith almostunlimiteddiscretionregardinghowtheyspend money with minimal accountability.
Commissionersarenot requiredto gainapprovalfor their actionsfrom the voting public or evenfrom thecitycouncilswhichappointthem." 5Inpractice, thePortDistrictrequiresafiduciaryoathofits commissioners to act in the best interests of the Port District, and in its role as guardian of the public trust, to the benefit of the residents of California. As appointees of one of five Port District cities, each commissioner must also represent the perspectives of the city appointing them ascommissioner.
Inrepresentingtheinterestsof thePortDistrictbutonlytheperspectivesof theportcitiesappointing them, a dichotomyis created. Thedichotomyallowsportcommissionersto managethevaluable resourcesof SanDiego Bay in a unified, comprehensivemannerbut limits electedgovernmentsof the PortCitiesandtheirconstituentsin makingtheirviewsknownorin determiningtheactionsthatarein theirbestinterests. As aresult, this dichotomyleadsnotonlyto voterdisenfranchisement, butto a disconnection between elected municipal governments andtheir constituents, who must subordinate and subject their interests to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners. zSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrictPortCommissionersMeeting, September13, 2022, videorecording@1:14:25. Boardof Port Commissioners on 2022- 09- 13 1:00 PM ( granicus. com) aSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrictPortCommissionersMeeting, September13, 2022, videorecording@1:15:50. Boardof Port Commissioners on 2022- 09- 13 1:00 PM ( granicus. com) 41986-87SanDiegoCountyGrandJury, TheCountyofSanDiegoandTheSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrictReportNo, 15, June 30, 1987, page 5- 6.
51997-98 SanDiegoCountyGrandJury, TheSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrict: It'sTimefor TaxpayersandCitizensto Havea Direct Say, Final Report, June 30, 1998, page 103.
2 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Severeastheseassessmentsare, they arerootedin the SanDiegoUnified PortDistrict Act (PortAct)', enactedby the California Legislaturein 1962, through which the Stateof California delegatesthe powerandresponsibilityfor managementofthetidelandsandsubmergedlandsof SanDiegoBay. The Port Act delegates these powers to the Port District from the California State Lands Commission SLC) as guardian of these tidelands and submerged lands through the public trust doctrine. This doctrine " provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterwaysareto beheldin trustby the Statefor thebenefitof thepeopleof California." 7ThePort District acts in this capacity asanindependentgovernmentalspecial district without direct oversight of its sevencommissionersby otherlocalcity or countyagencies. Theunsalariedcommissionersare appointedto four-yeartermsbycity councilsof eachof thefive citiesthatborderSanDiegoBay, (San Diego, ChulaVista, Coronado, ImperialBeach, andNationalCity). Whilethecommissionersmust residein the city thatappointedthem, theycanserveanunlimitednumberof four-yearterms, except in theCityof Coronadowhichlimitsitsportcommissionersto twoterms. Portcommissionersmaybe recalledby majority vote of the city councilwhich appointedthem. Otherthantheselimitations, no oversightby localgovernmentalbodiesis authorizedby thePortAct, anddecisionsby theBoardof PortCommissionersarenot subjectto approval, vetoor appealby city councilsor votersof thefive Port Cities or the county. 8, 9
Democratictheory equatesresponsiblegovernmentwith popularparticipation in and control over policy formulation, political equalityfor theindividual, decidingdivisionsof opinionby majorityrule withcompletefreedomof discussion, andperiodicallyholdingfreeandmeaningfulelections.10Yetby virtue of the legislation that created the San Diego Unified Port District, values such as these that citizenshavecometo expectin our governmentallegislative, regulatoryandjudicial institutionshave not been embraced.
METHODOLOGY
TheGrandJuryconductedinterviewsandrequestedinformationfrommunicipalandcounty governmentalorganizations affectedby the Port Act.
The Grand Jury researchedandreviewed thesedocuments:
California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix I, also known asthe San Diego Unified Port District Act ( Port Act)
The 1986-1987 Grand Jury report: " The County of SanDiego andthe SanDiego Unified Port District, Report No. 15" and responses
The 1997-1998 Grand Jury report: "The San Diego Unified Port District: It' s Time for Taxpayers andCitizensto Havea Direct Say" andresponsesfrom the citiesof SanDiego, ChulaVista, Coronado, ImperialBeach, andNationalCity
Meeting Minutes and Agendasfrom the cities of SanDiego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, andNational City aswell asthe SanDiego Unified PortDistrict Historical recordsandarticlesrelating to formation of the Port District (per footnotes) GrandJuryReportson Portsin otherCalifornia Counties
6CaliforniaHarborsandNavigationCode, Appendix1, SanDiegoPortDistrictAct, Documentno. 70987, filed March3, 2020, Office of the District Clerk. '
https:// www. slc. ca. gov/ public- engagement/
sCalifornia Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, SanDiego Port District Act eTheCityof Coronadolimitsthe numberof termsservedbyPortCommissionersto two terms 10Bachrach, Peter, TheTheoryof DemocraticElitism (Chicago, 1962), p. 94. 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) SanDiegoUnified PortDistrict Website: www.portofsandiego_org Detailed electronicmaps showing specificboundariesandareaswithin the SanDiego Unified Port District
DISCUSSION
Creation of the San Diego Unified Port District
When California became a state in 1850, it acquired title to navigable waterways astrustee for the protection of public lands, streams, lakes, marshlands, and tidelands. This is referred to as common law public trust doctrine. Per the State of California State Lands Commission ( SLC), " The public' s right to useCalifornia' swaterwaysfor navigation, fishing, boating, naturalhabitatprotectionand otherwater -orientedactivitiesis protectedby the CommonLaw doctrineof thePublicTrust." Historically, thePublic Trust hasreferredto thebasicright of the public to useits waterwaysto engage in " commerce, navigation, and fisheries." The SLC further states that the " Public Trust provides that tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways areto beheldin trustbytheStateforthebenefitof thepeopleof California."I1 SanDiego Unified Port District: UniqueAmong California Ports TheSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrictis uniqueamongCalifornia's12portsin its establishmentby state law. Accordingto thePortAct, this wasnecessarybecauseof thegeographyandotherspecial characteristics of the locale:
It isherebydeclaredto bethepolicy of theStateof Californiato developtheharborsandports of this Statefor multiple purposeusefor the benefitof thepeople. A necessityexistswithin SanDiego County for suchdevelopment. Becauseof the severalseparatecities and unincorporatedpopulatedareasin the areahereinafterdescribed, only aspeciallycreated district canoperateeffectively in developingtheharborsandport facilities. Becauseof the unique problems presentedby this area, andthe facts and circumstancerelative to the development of harbor and port facilities, the adoption of a special act and the creation of a special district is required. 12
With passageof the enabling Proposition D in November 1962, the SLC granted regulation and control of thetidelands and submergedlandsof SanDiego Bay to the newly createdPort District.
Following passageof SanDiego County's PropositionD, the cities of SanDiego, Chula Vista, Coronado, ImperialBeach, andNationalCity wereto transferthemanagementof statetidal and submergedlandsin SanDiegoBayto thejurisdiction of anewly formedSanDiegoUnified Port District,
Proposition D Controversy
Passageof PropositionD wasnotobtainedwithoutcontroversy. Priorto theelection, thecitycouncils of Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista opposed formation of the Port District. Supporters of the propositionfocusedontheeconomicbenefitsmadepossibleby thecombinedeffortsof PortCitieson suchprojectsasconstructionof SouthBay channelandtheresultingjob growth from expansionof industrialdevelopmentandmaritimeactivities. Opponentsofthepropositionfocusedprimarilyonthe potentialcontrolwieldedby anunelectedboardof port commissionerswho would havethepowerto ii https:// www. slc. ca. gov/ public- engagement/
szCalifornia Harborsand NavigationCode, Appendix 1, SanDiegoPort District Act, §2, pg 7. https:// Pantheonstorage. blob.core.windows net/ administration/ San-Diego-Unified- Port-District- Act pdf March 3, 2020. 4 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) issuebonds, levy taxesanddeveloplocal tidelandresourceswithout input from individual PortCities.
Another concern was the unequal number of commissioners allocated to each of the Port Cities; the City of SanDiegowouldgetthreecommissionerswhileeachof theremainingfour PortCitieswould get one commissioner each, potentially allowing SanDiego to exert dominanceover Port Commission resources and priorities. 13
A studycommissionedby the CoronadoChamberof Commercethreemonthsprior to the 1962 electionsuggestedthatinsteadof the simplemajorityrequiredby thePortAct to constituteaquorum for Commissioners to conduct business, the act be amendedto require a quorum of at least two commissionersfromthefourPortCitiesof Coronado, ImperialBeach, ChulaVistaandNationalCity.
An additionalchangein themake-upof theportcommissionwasalsosuggestedto includeonlytwo SanDiegoCommissioners, onecommissionerfromSanDiegoCounty, andoneeachfromthefour otherPortCities, allowingappointmentof acommissionerrepresentinginterestsof unincorporated bayfront areasof the county.14
While PropositionD wasapprovedby amajority of votersin the citiesof SanDiego, ChulaVista, ImperialBeachandNationalCity, thepropositionwasdefeatedin Coronadobya 3to 1margin. An unsuccessfullawsuit filed by Coronado, Imperial BeachandChula Vista attemptedto make acceptanceof membershipin thePort District optional, resultingin atemporarydelay, but formation of thePortDistrict wascompletedonDecember18, 1963, following certificationof thevotescastfor Proposition D in the November 6, 1962 election. 15
Port District Funding of Operations
PortDistrict operationsarefinancedprimarily throughleasesandfeesgeneratedthroughits realestate operations, parking, harbor police and other servicesor feesprovided to public or commercial customers of the Port District. As a landlord, the Port District generates most of its revenue from tenantsand subtenantswho pay rent or feesto conductbusinesson tidelands. The list includes hotels, restaurants, retail shops, marinas, landings, yacht clubs, shipyards, cargo operators, aerospace firms andcruise ships. While allowed by the Port Act to do so, the Port District doesnot collect taxes..
Various provisions of the Port Act also allow the Port District to issue general obligation, revenue bondsor levy propertyor otherformsof taxation.
In the Fiscal Year ending June30, 2022, over $90 million, or 55% of the Port District' s operating revenueweregeneratedby leasesandotherRealEstaterevenue, while parking, maritimeandother feesprovidedanother $77million in operatingrevenue, orapproximately45% of operating revenues.
Like commercial business entities that are dependent on revenue streams to remain viable, economic activities that support the Port District' s operations have also represented a significant source of economicrisk. Recently, impactsoftheCOVID-19pandemiconPortDistrictoperationsseverely limitedmostrevenuegeneratingPortDistrictactivities, resultingin a $19.3million lossin thefiscal yearending June2021 andprompting onePort Commissionerto considerthe needto "analyzeand 13SanDiegoCountyRegistrarofVoters, ArgumentsforandAgainstPropositionD, SanDiegoCountyGeneralElection, November 7, 1962.
14TheWyattReport: Here'sTextof AdvisoryonUnitedPort, SanDiegoEveningTribune, August22, 1962, A14 -A15. 1sIbid.
2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) understandoptionsfor potentialtaxation. ,16However, thePortDistrict qualifiedfor $29million in stimulusfundassistancein thefollowingyear, leadingtothegenerationof a $68.3million incomein thefiscalyearendingJune2022.17
While thesetidelands -associatedrevenuestreamsallow the Port District to operatefree of budget constraints typical of other state or local government agencies, the need to generatesuch revenue can leadto a significantsourceof biasin thedeliberationsof PortCommissionersandobscuremotivesand objectivesof staffatall levelsof theorganization. In arecentbriefingbythePortDistrict, asizeable, expected return on investment from a proposed project was praised as ajustification for the large public investment of tax dollars neededto fund the project, with lessemphasisplacedon the project' s other characteristics.
Balanced Interests?
TheGrandJuryinvestigationrevealedmanyconcernsbythePortDistrict'sstakeholders. SmallerPort Cities reported a lack of follow through or investment in their cities proportional to the revenue generatedfor thePortDistrict by tidelandsactivitiesoccurringin their municipalboundaries. Others citealackof prioritizationforprojectsnotassociatedwithlucrativeleasingcontractsorother significantrevenuesources. TheGrandJuryacknowledgessuchviews, andseesthedilemmafacedby thePortDistrictin balancingthemanydiverseandpotentiallycompetingmunicipal, stateandpublic interestsit mustmanageasbothnuancedandcomplexin wayslessunderstoodbythepublicin general, andin somecasesby the city andcountygovernmentsit serves.
How doesa port commissioner balance or prioritize the needsor interests of separatecommunities, neighborhoods or municipalities against one another or against the interests of the Port District itself? Astheadagegoes, actionsspeaklouderthanwords; perhapsrecentactivitiesbythePortDistrictand votesby theBoardof PortCommissionerscanhelpto answersuchquestions.
Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center
The key piece of the ChulaVista Bayfront MasterPlan is the Gaylord Pacific Resortand Convention Center, a $1.1billion project that broke groundin 2022 for a 1,600 -room hotel alongside a 275,000 squarefootconventioncenterona36.5 -acresite. In 2012, afteralmostadecadeofplanning, theCity of Chula Vista and the Port District received approval from the California Coastal Commission for this projectallowing for theconversionof 535acresof vacantandindustrialpropertyinto a ResortHotel andConventionCenter, RV Park, andparkingstructure. An existingmotel, alsopartof theprojectsits on land adjacent to Port District boundaries.
Theproject is important becauseboththe City of ChulaVista andthe PortDistrict collaboratedonthe MasterPlan andwereinvolved in seekingits approval, andbothpartiesconsiderthe development project a great success. The Grand Jury investigationrevealedanalignment of interestsof both parties centered on the regional economic benefits from development of these underused and undervalued tidelandassets. Both partieswerefully engaged, fully committedandenjoyedthe supportof the community duringall phasesof theproject, from the initial masterplan approvalto selectionof the JenniferVanGrove, SanDiego's BayfrontisControlledbya Little -understoodAgencyWith PowerThatWill BeTestedin TheNewYear, February5, 2021, page13; SanDiego's bayfrontiscontrolledby a little -understoodagencywith power that will be tested in new vear - The San Diego Union -Tribune ( sandiegouniontribune com) 17SanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrict, AnnualComprehensiveFinancialReport, FiscalYearsEndedJune302022and2021.
6 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED NNE 7, 2023) operatoranddeveloper, aswell astheformationof multiplefinancingagreements. Bothpartiesareto sharein the public infrastructure costs expected to approach $370 million, but also retain sharesof excess revenues.
Dole Fruit CompanyContract
First signed in 2002, this agreement leased portions of San Diego' s 10a' Avenue terminal to Dole Fruit Companyforimportsof fruit intotheU.S. westcoastmarket. Primaryoperationscenteredonlong- haultruckingoperationsdeliveringfruit to manysitesin theSouthernCaliforniaregion, aswell as short=haultruckingoperationsto sitesin SanDiegoCounty. Theshort -haullocaloperationsinvolved many more trips by smaller -sizedtrucks andwere perceivedto createa more significant sourceof air pollution than long-haul operationswhich involved larger loads andfewer trips on semi -trailer trucks.
Following negotiation for a 25 -year leaseextensionthrough 2036, terms were not releaseduntil three daysprior to theproposal'sapprovalby theBoardof Port CommissionersonAugust14, 2012. The agreementnot only extendedDole'slease, but alsomovedits short -haultruckingoperationoutof San Diego'sBarrioLoganneighborhood. Thismovewasperceivedtoreducepollutionin anareaalready affectedbysignificantpollutionfromthenearbyfreewayandindustrialmaritimeandmanufacturing activities. However, the short -haultrucking operationwasonly relocatedto a locationin the neighboringcity of National City, therebyincreasingpollution thatpotentiallyaffectedthehealthand well-beingof nearbyresidentsof thatcity. Relocationof Dole'sshort -haultruckingoperationsalso requiredthedisruption, delayandreroutingof theNationalCitylegoftheBayshoreBikewayproject andtheTidelandsAvenuerelocationplanningefforts, twokeycomponentsoftheNationalCityBalanced Plan.
Theactionstakenby the Port District in approvingtheDoleFruit Companylease, reducedpotential health hazardsfor residents of SanDiego' s Barrio Logan neighborhood at the expenseof the health of NationalCityresidents, while creatingsignificantdelaysanddisruptionsin theMasterPlanbenefitting National City residents.
Mitsubishi CementFactory
ThePort District recentlyconsideredanapplicationby Mitsubishi CementCorporation (Mitsubishi) for a Coastal Development Permit ( CDP) that would allow Mitsubishi to construct and operate a cementimport, storage, loadinganddistributionfacility within theTenthAvenueMarineTerminal." Beginningin 2015, Mitsubishihadbeennegotiatingwith thePortDistrictto shipcement -making materials to the Port -operated Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal warehouse for storage and shipment to SouthernCaliforniaconstructionsites. Nearbyresidentsperceivedtheprojectwould haveintroduceda new significant sourceof pollution to surroundingneighborhoodsalready experiencingpollution from maritime and industrial activities and freeways in the area.
While thePortDistricthasapprovedaMaritimeCleanAir Strategy (MCAS) to replacedieselfuel burningtruckswith electricvehiclesby 2030, thetechnologysupportingzeroemissionelectricpower for vehicles the size of cementtrucks was not yet available, and the Port District announcedin a press SanDiegoUnified Port District, Ordinance2936, February25, 2019, https:// pantheonstorage. blob. core. windows. net/ administration/ Ordinance- No- 2936. pdf 7 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) releasethatnegotiationswith Mitsubishi "werenotmovingforward," but expressed a willingness to re - consider the proposal, " shouldthedaycomewhentheywantto re -opennegotiations."'9 WhilethedecisiontodiscontinueMitsubishi'scementwarehousefacilitywasultimatelymadein the public interest, the discussion to proceed or terminate the project occurred not in a public forum, but behind closed doors and was announced in a press release.
Theprocessfor evaluationof suchprojectsby thePortDistrict is well establishedandlogical in its progressionfrom theproposal, preliminaryapproval, planning, development, environmentaland coastalcommissionreviewphases. Yet considerationof theprojectby alocal electedgovernmental entitymight havegivengreaterpriority to thehealthconcernsof communitymembersandresultedin a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project' s evaluation process.
Coronado Cottages at the Cays
Recentdecisionsby thePortDistrictsurroundingtheproposedCottagesattheCaysProjecton Coronado'sNorth GrandCaribeIsleexemplifythedisconnectionanddisenfranchisementof the voting public and electedgovernmentalbodiesresulting from the Port District' s independencefrom local governmental oversight. The Port District had considered a development application from a lesseeof propertyonCoronado'sNorthGrandCaribeIslandto build 41two-bedroomshortstayunits limited to six guests per unit. In a letter addressed to the Board of Port Commissioners dated December23, 2022, the Mayor of Coronadoexpressedstrongoppositionto theproject, stating, "this projectdoesnotreflectthewill of thecommunityor theCoronadoCity Council." Specific objections to the project cited in the letter included: 20
A unanimousvote by the CoronadoCity Councilin oppositionto theproposedproject.
Oppositionfrom communitygroupssuchasthe CoronadoCaysHomeowner'sAssociation and community memberswho provided petitions in opposition.
Reversal of the Port District policy refined in the 2021 Port Master Plan Update (PMPU) to expresslydisallow the developmentof more hotel rooms andto convert the land use designation to Recreational Open Space, which preserves the area for environmental preservation and complete public access."
Theprojectwouldcreate "preferentialaccessto thosethatcanaffordwhatwill mostlikely be costly room ratessimilar to otherhotel ratesin the area." The project contravenes the PMPU commitment for the " protection and management of naturalresourcesthatbestreflect environmentalstewardshipfor presentandfuture generations", on property expectedto be highly vulnerableto sealevel rise in the decades to come.
Theprojectwould "createahotelusewhich is not compatiblewith the surrounding residential area...," posingsignificanttraffic impactsandsafetyconcernson the communityof approximately1,200homeswhich canonly be accessedthrough a single entrance.
19SanDiegoUnified Port District, Port of SanDiegoIssuesStatementon Mitsubishi CementProposal, GeneralPress Release, February 1, 2023, https:// www. portofsandiego. org/ press-releases/ general- press- releases/ port- san-diego- issues- statement- mitsubishi- cement- proposal
20MayorRichardBailey, Letterof Oppositionto Cottagesat the CaysDevelopmentProjectProposal, December23, 2022, 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Dueto policiesgoverningthe rightsof lessees, ThePortDistrict wasobligatedto presentthis developmentproposalfor avoteto theBoardof PortCommissioners. In addition, the PortDistrict viewed theland usedesignation of RecreationalOpen Spacefor the parcel reflected in the 2021 Port MasterPlanUpdateasbeingunbindingandpreliminary, pendingapprovalbytheCaliforniaCoastal Commission: Had it been approved, this land use would have representeda land use inconsistent with the CoronadoCaysdevelopmentproposalwhich requireda CommercialOpenSpacedesignation currentlyin placefor theproperty. OnFebruary14, 2023, theBoardof PortCommissionersapproved theCottagesattheCaysProjectby avoteof 4-3in favorof initiatingaCaliforniaEnvironmental QualityAct (CEQA) review, followedby considerationof aPortMasterPlanAmendmentto addthe projectto thePortMasterPlan, prior to applicationby the developerfor a coastaldevelopmentpermit.
Who Watchesthe Watchers? California Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission InresponsetotheGrandJury'sconcernthatthePortDistrictislargelyautonomous, self-governing, self-fundedandindependentof oversightby local electedofficials, thePortDistrict viewsthe oversightof its decisionsandactivitiesprovidedby the California StateLandsCommission (SLC) and the California Coastal Commission as more than adequate.
The SLC oversight is to ensurePort District activities are consistentwith the public trust doctrine. In this role the Port District consults with the SLC on an asneededbasis, to seekclarification, advice and guidancein mattersaffectingthePortDistrict'sroleasguardianofthepublictrustfor SanDiegoBay.
If determinedtobeinconsistentwiththisdoctrine, theSLCcoulddirectthePortDistricttostop, discussandresolvethe issuescausingsuchconcern.
In addition to the StateLands Commission and California Coastal Commission approvals, the CEQA requiresthat "stateandlocalagenciesconsiderenvironmentalprotectioninregulatingpublicand privateactivitiesandshouldnotapproveprojectsfor whichthereexistfeasibleandenvironmentallysuperior mitigation in or alternatives." In the absenceof any documentedexemptionsprovided for in the act, CEQA requires the publication of detailed Environmental Impact Reports for projects approvedby the Port District for public review andcomment.21 Requirements of the California Coastal Commission and CEQA also affect Port District activities relating to the approval of the Port Master Plan, Master Plan Updates or Amendments. In addition, Port District approvedprojects often require a coastaldevelopmentpermit from the California Coastal Commission.
Whilemembersof portcity councilsor SanDiegoCountySupervisorshavenodirectoversightofPort District activities or ability to appealdecisionsof theBoardof Port Commissioners, thePortDistrict indicatedthe existenceof multiple venuesto maketheir views known, andcommissionersasa whole placea very high value on the desiresof membercities. In addition, the public hasaccessto most of the public meetings of the SLC, California Coastal Commission and also to regular meetings of the Board of Port Commissioners, aswell asaccessto thepublic websitesof theseorganizations. Also, decisionsof thethree-member California CoastalCommissioncanbe appealedwith the agreementof two of three commissioners to first hear the appeal and then vote to reverse their decision. ziCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct, Chapter1: Policy (archive.org) 9 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Public Participation and the Port District of SanDiego
The GrandJury notedmeetingsof the Board of Commissionersarepostedon the Port District' s websiteandthat public participation is allowed. Meeting agendasareposted, andminutes aremade available. In addition, the Board of Port Commissioner meetings are recorded, and recordings are availablefor publicviewing. ThePortDistrict'spolicyregardingpublicparticipationis spelledoutin Boardof PortCommissionersPolicy060whichwasadoptedJune10, 2008.22 TheBoardof PortCommissionersalsoformedseveralsubcommittees, forums, orworkinggroupsto solicit public input in the Board's decision-makingprocess. "In setting policies for our dynamic waterfront, the Port District of San Diego seeks to make decisions that are in the public interest. To thatend, theBoardof PortCommissionershasformedvariouscommittees, forumsandworking groupsto discusscurrentissues. Thesemeetingsareanimportanttool for gatheringinformation, exploringideas, andobtainingfeedbackfor usein decisionmakingbytheBoard."23 Thesegroupsinclude the Accessibility Advisory Committee; Arts, Culture, andDesign Committee; Audit Oversight Committee; Bayfront Cultural and Design Committee Chula Vista; Chula Vista BayfrontFacilitiesFinancingAuthority; EnvironmentalAdvisoryCommittee; Maritime Forum; San DiegoHarborSafetyCommittee; Wildlife AdvisoryGroup; andWorldTradeCenterSanDiego.
ResearchinginformationavailableonthePortDistrict'swebsite, theGrandJurynotesthatagendas andmeetingminutesfor somebut not all the advisorycommitteesareavailable. The screenshotbelow documentingtheinformationconcerningthePort'sEnvironmentalAdvisory zzBPC-Policy-No-060-Public-Participation-in-Board-of-Port-Commissioners-Board-Meetings.pdf. https:// pantheonstorage. blob. core. windows. net/ administration/ zshttps:// www. portofsandlego. org/ people/ other- public- meetings 10 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Committee for all years available.24
AllMeetings
l'slVavr `, (a!tnarVitwt.
Years ri: EnvironmantaIAdvisoryCommttee__..__._.`aLlnatn6rratatta Sear dar Help
lOrHords Group ; Export
Nom: gData. r,; 3l btetlicgbmt tdtebgLabOn h4tal.ngWIS 4trh AHtlab4tn@a 4endaMet lilktes kt bkmirwtts V:dto eompAtib' tC s EnvbonmentalWoryCommittee 911412022 i 911AM VNfualMOrl - h¢e'gda_tadE i' 89en Aa¢sslbleAa¢ NotavAtle Notava:labie Notavalhlo ! lotavadabl¢ Notavailable REl75EDA6ENDA
EnvaaVnaakl
Emit"ntilARSoryCommillee 311612022 i! 9:0041 Vutualwellq Rim" d¢ta0s N to dgoressbMqg¢ a Notaulabl¢ Notava1able Rolv ,Iabl2 No! avaiabte lootavaifabl¢ Em4raan dvisanCaaaee:' 121112021 q 9-ik* r `}
YaGofMee4fgFIe2defs v r % ]
Navaa6f a JE ° r arapab tontdaif r Ngiara9aGla ' k: F.. .. x. nr.... ,_ .,.....,. .,.., e..,,,.._... .,. ........,. .., ^. . y... - ... ., ..,. ., ,. , v ErAmnentalAdmoryCommiltee 912212021 9:30AM 4irtualMeeting MeeHn9detads jA¢y_nda Notavalabla Notavai?ab!¢ Notava!able Notavalable Natavaiiab!e Rolavalhie C6 ice¢ 6n12021 r, ,_
9'30Aj YItUI¢t ` lx NDt3Y tBt3 ak" 193 3} c } rk2rzka NtSarara Not 42i ' 5 dr ,. alt . big. dx u,. nxr, 5., . C, :. x5 C,,. _. e t t Y r. t' rF EmmonmentalAko Camm9lee 311212021 9 9:30AM MvalMeting Med-4±9 Agent Notatsiiable Notavadable Nota4lable Notavailable Notavaifabl¢ Notavailable r R '! rR tlft
A c mNY ' ti r12(212020 9AM CN¢Eta k fe11; NCtnaMt tNxasaa 6zvrlbe r 4^xia e taa+at34}t y 6ctaa>3tp r, EM" ntilAmou. committet 911612020 930AM M¢etAgdta'ds Agee Notavailable tlotavAble Notvailable Notavailable Notavaifabl¢ Notavailable YralFleeGng
aomiteniAdiaryfdn+me¢ 3' 613'iU20 r 930411
A
a `` ApAp" ot4va4Efi i1Caa6k9 a' ' 1<4a la Nri cati>e
The GrandJury notesthat only four of the eight meetingshad "accessible" agendas, while noneof the meetingshadminutespostedonline. Accordingto the lastpostedagendafor theEnvironmental Advisory Committee, the agendaincludedadiscussionwith respectto theNational City Balanced Planportion of theproposedupdatedMasterPlan. However, in reviewingthepostedmembershipof theEnvironmentalAdvisoryCommitteetherearenostaffmemberslistedfromNationalCity (not any of the other Port Cities), This points to a lack of transparencywith regardsto the coordinationof the Port District with the member cities.
Master Plan Documents and Updates
Under Section 19 of the Port Act, the Port District was to " draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which shall be conveyed to the district pursuant to the provisions of this act." This Port MasterPlanwas approvedby the Board of PortCommissionersin 1980andlatercertifiedbytheCaliforniaCoastalCommissiononJanuary21, 1981.25SubsequentlythePortDistrictapproved41amendmentstothe1980MasterPlan.
In 2019, SB507 §5.7 wasincorporatedinto thePortAct requiringPortDistrict to "submitto theState Lands Commission a trust lands use plan for. trust lands .. , describinganyproposeddevelopment, preservation, or other use of the trust lands," Section 5.7 goes on to state that the " State Lands zahttps:// portofsandiego. legistar. com/ Calendar. aspx zsCalifornia Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, SanDiego Port District Act §19, San Diego Unified Port District, Document 70987, March 3, 2020, page 15.
11 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Commission, in its solediscretion, mayconsiderwhetherthesubmissionof thePortMaster Plan ... meets the requirements of ... a trust lands use plan." 16 1'he fort District' sresponsehas beento publish the "SanDiego Unified Port District, DRAF 1' Port MasterPlanUpdate" datedNovember2021. As of thewriting of thisreporttheMasterPlanUpdate hasnot beensubmittedto the California CoastalCommissionor to the StateLandsCommission.27 ParticularconfusionexistsamongPortCitiesleadersandresidentsregardingtheprovisionsPort MasterPlanthatis periodicallyupdatedby thePortDistrict. Much of the confusionis associatedwith the sizeand complexity of the Master Plan documentitself— the most recent but -still - unapproved - update (2021) is well over400pagesin lengthwhenincludingappendices, whilethepubliccomments alonecompriseanother800pages. As anindicatorof thecomplexityof informationcontainedin the Plan commentsalone, the format for the commentsreceivedfor the 2021 MasterPlan Updadewas an electronicPDFflat file format comprisingcommentsfrom 10agencies, 19organizations, 10 businessesorPortTenantsandindividualsfromall 10planningdistricts. Questionedabouthowthe Port District respondedto comments, how the comments were used or actedupon, the Port Gaveno clear answers in response.
Theplanis categorizedinto 10geographicalPortplanningdistricts. Despitethefactthatthese planningdistrictscouldbeorganizedaroundeachofthePortCitieswithinwhichthesmallerplanning districts exist, this approachhas not beenused in the past. However, such an approach could foster greaterunderstandingof theseplansby residentsandleadersalike while greatlysimplifying the review andapprovalprocessfor eachPort city' s MasterPlan.
While the Port Act identifies requirements for development of Port Master Plans and Trust Use Plans, theGrandJuryconcludedthatthePortAct doesnot precludethePortCitiesortheCountyof San Diegofrom requiringratificationby PortCitiesor thecountyof suchplansprior to submissionto the appropriatestateagencyfor approval. Further, suchratificationby eachPortCity Councilorthe County Board of Supervisorswould allow elected officials to ensurethat theseplans are in the best interest of their constituents and aligned with plans and objectives of these government bodies.
Tothatend, theGrandJurywill recommendthatPortCitiesandCountySupervisorsof supervisorial districtsfronting SanDiegoBayberequiredto ratify all portmasterplans, masterplanupdates, master plan amendmentsor trust useplansfor PortDistrict activitiesoccurringwithin their boundaries; further, thatsuchratificationberequiredpriorto PortDistrictproceedingwith EnvironmentalImpact Reviewsrequiredby CEQA, submissionof suchplansfor approvalby theCaliforniaCoastal Commission, StateLandsCommissionorapprovalofcoastaldevelopmentpermits. Finally, once ratifiedby aPortCity or Countyagency, eachPortCity'smasterplanupdatewouldbecomethe currentPortMasterPlanfor projectplanningpurposes.
Options: Wheretogofrom here? PortCommissionerStatusReportstoCityCouncils Therecommendationsof the 1997-1998GrandJuryreportweredirectedto thecity councilsof the five citiesaffectedbythePortDistrictandtotheCountyBoardof Supervisors. Recommendation98 - California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act §19, SanDiego Unified Port District, Document 70987, March 3, 2020, page 10.
Z' https:// pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows. net/ waterfront- development/ Port-Master-Plan-Update-Draft-November- 2021. pdf
12 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) 50to thefive city councilswereto "createandimplementformalpoliciesrequiringtheirport commissionerrepresentativesto report regularly to their respectivecity councils in aformal manner." TheCity crCSariDiegorespoluledto tlirtialec:curutitlida(iollssayirg Uiatpolioiatiwttloalraadyill pla.c:e governingqualificationsfor portcommissionersaswell asformalreportingto thecitycouncil. The cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach reported that briefings from their Port Commissioners concerningPortDistrict activitieswerescheduledaspartof eachregularlyscheduledcity council meeting. TheCity of ChulaVistareportedthecity councilmeetswith theirportcommissioner quarterly, or as often as needed," while NationalCity reportedreceiving, periodicreportsfrom their Port Commissioner on an informal basis.
ThecurrentGrandJuryinvestigatedthecurrentpracticesof thePortCitiesin pursuingregularupdates in regularlyscheduledpublicforumssuchasCity Councilmeetings. Communicationwith Port Commissionerswas reportedto occur regularly on aninformal basis, but confirmation of such informalmeetingsprovedimpractical. As aresult, theGrandJuryreviewedreadilyavailablepublic meetingagendasandminutesof thePortCity councilsduring2022. Wediscoveredthefollowing:
SanDiego: TheGrandJurycouldnotfindanyminutesoragendaitemsrecognizingthatanyofits Port CommissionersmadepresentationsregardingPortDistrict activitiesin public meetings. This includedareview of City Council agendasfor 2022, noneof which includedagendaitemsof briefings orpresentationsby the city' sPortCommissioners.
ChulaVista: TheGrandJurycouldnotfindanyminutesoragendaitemsrecognizingthatits Port CommissionermadepresentationsregardingPortDistrict activitiesin public.
Coronado: Accordingtoreviewedminutesandagendaitems, asingleupdatefromthecity's commissioner occurred on April 19, 2022.
ImperialBeach: Accordingto reviewedminutesandagendaitems, onlyoneupdatetookplaceon January19, 2022.28
NationalCity: An agendaitemfor reportsfromtheircommissioneris createdfor eachCity Council meeting. The GrandJury wasunableto learnif that wasthe result of a publishedcouncil policy.
In view of theinformationprovidedthroughtestimonyandsurveysof publicrecordsregardingPort Commissionerreportsandbriefingsto their city councilsonthe activitiesof thePortDistrict, the GrandJuryconcludedthatsuchreportingin publiclyaccessiblevenuessuchascity councilmeetings doesnot take place on a frequent or regular basis. Combined with a preferencefor informal channels of communication with their appointed representatives, these tendencies call into question whether Port CommissionersandPortCity Councilsmaintainopenandtransparentrelationships.
Re-engagementof Port Citiesand Countyof SaltDiego
TheGrandJuryhasconcludedthatbecauseofthePortDistrict'sindependenceandautonomyfrom local governmentalreview or approval of its decisions, voters andelectedrepresentativesin the Port Cities andCounty of SanDiegohavebecomedisenfranchised. Electedrepresentativescannotprevent or appealPortDistrict decisionsthat adverselyaffecttheir constituents, andasaresult, voterscannot dependon their electedrepresentativesto actin their bestinterests. As a result of suchshortcomings, accountability of representatives to their constituents is limited when the normal expected prerogatives of electedoffice holdershavebeensupplantedinsteadby anunelectedentity suchasthePortDistrict. zs
Cityof ImperialBeach, CityCouncil, RegularMeetingMinutes, January19, 2022, 6:00p.m,, VirtualMeeting 13 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Balancing the rights and interestsof diverse coastalcities, communities andneighborhoodsthroughout lieSafiDiegoCuuu[y tegiuuisa5igttilicattlaltalleuge, eveulooanelectedgovetuiugbodyuol motivatedby economicincentives. Attemptingthistaskthroughalargelyindependentand autonomous organization such as the Port District that is dependent on revenue from development projectsandleasingactivity maybetoomuchto askof theorganization, especiallywithoutthe guidanceof deliberativeelectedcity councils, countysupervisorsor otherelectedgovernmentbodies.
The GrandJuryconcludesthat only with there-engagementof the electedgovernmentbodiesaffected by Port District activities and landswithin their jurisdictional boundariescanthe interestsof residents beequitablybalancedwith competingPortDistrict goalsandobjectives.
FACTS AND FINDINGS
Duties, Responsibilities and Powers
Fact: The public trust doctrine provides that tidal and submerged lands, beds of lakes, streamsand othernavigablewaterwaysareto beheld in trustby the Statefor thebenefit of the peopleof California.
Fact: ThePortDistrict Act delegatesthepowerandresponsibilityfor managementof thetidelands andsubmergedlandsof SanDiego Bay from the Stateof California to the SanDiego Unified Port District.
Fact: Many electedofficials of Port Cities believe Port Commissioners areto act in the best interest of the cities appointing them.
Fact: The Port Act limits the ability of electedofficials to representthe interestsof the voterswho elect them.
Fact: It is the duty of eachPort Commissionerto act asa guardianof thepublic trust for tidal and submergedlandsof SanDiego Bay in the interestsof all California residents.
Fact: Port Commissionerstakeafiduciary oathto actin thebestinterestsof the Port District, Finding 01: PortCommissionersareonly requiredto representtheperspectives, not the interestsof the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.
Finding 02: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or countygovernments.
Fact: The oversightprovided by the StateLandsCommissionandCalifornia CoastalCommissionof PortDistrict activities is viewed by the Port District asmorethan sufficient.
Fact: PortCommissionersmustlive in thePortCity appointingthem.
Fact: PortCommissionersmayberecalledbyamajorityvoteofthecity councilappointingthem.
Fact: PortCommissionerscanserveanunlimitednumberof four-yearterms, exceptin theCityof Coronado in which Commissioners can serve a maximum of two terms. 14 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Finding03: Becausetheinterestsof residentsof PortCitiesandtheCountyof SanDiego aresubject to theinterpretationsof theunelectedDoardof PoitCommissioners, theirinterestsmaynotbeheard, prioritized or represented accurately.
Finding 04: BriefingsbyPortCommissionersto PortCity Councilsin noticedpublicmeetings regarding issuesaffecting their jurisdictions, will increasethe level of public participation and knowledgeregardingPortDistrict activities, PortMasterPlans, MasterPlanUpdates, PortMasterPlan amendments or additions.
FindingOS: Currently, theBoardofPortCommissionersdoesnothavetermlimits. Consideringterm limitswouldfosterdemocraticprinciplesbyprovidingmoreopportunitiesfor diverseandtalented individualstoserve, preventtheaccumulationof influence, andupholdthepublictrustbykeepingthe Boardrepresentativeresponsiveto its community.
Initial Opposition to Port District Formation
Fact: TheCity Councilsof thecitiesof Coronado, ImperialBeachandChulaVistainitially opposed formation of the Port District in 1962.
Fact: Formation of the Port District in 1962 occurred despite concerns that an unelected board of Port Commissionerswouldhavethepowerto issuebonds, levytaxesanddeveloplocaltidelandresources without input or approval of individual Port Cities.
Fact: Opposition to the formation of the Port District in 1962 involved the unequal number of commissionersallocatedto eachof the Port Cities; the City of SanDiegowould getthree commissioners while each of the remaining four Port Cities would get one commissioner each, potentially allowing SanDiego to exert dominanceover the resources, priorities and decisionsof the Port District.
Finding06: Withthreeof sevenportcommissionersappointedtotheBoardofPortCommissionersby the City of SanDiego, thepotentialexistsfor the City of SanDiegoto exertdominanceoverthe priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District.
Port District Potential Source of Bias
Fact: PortDistrict operationsarefinancedprimarilythroughleasesandfeesgeneratedthroughitsreal estateoperations, parking, harborpoliceandotherfeesprovidedby customersof thePortDistrict.
Finding 07: The Port District is incentivized to maximize revenueto fund its operations, a goal that maycreateconflictsofinterestin thepriorities, allocationof resourcesandotherdecisionsmadebythe Port Commission.
Chula Vista Convention Center and Hotel
Fact: The $ 1.1 billion Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center broke ground in 2022.
Finding 08: Successin the development of the Chula Vista Hotel andConvention Center hasbeen obtainedbecauseof a close collaboration andalignment of interestsbetweenthe Port District andthe City of Chula Vista.
15 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Dole Fruit Company Proposal
Fact: A 2012 approval of the Board of Port Commissioners for a lease of warehouse space on the Port District'sTenthAvenueTerminalto DoleFruitCompanyalsomovedastagingareafor short -haul trucking to the National City area.
Finding 09: ThePortCommissionersdecisionto moveshort -haultruck stagingfor local deliveriesof DoleFruitproductsrelocatedasourceof pollutionfromtheBarrioLogancommunityto communities in National City.
Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Proposal
Fact: MitsubishiCementCorporation'sproposalfor storageandshipmentby truckof cementproducts to constructionsitesin theregiongeneratedcontroversyandnegativepublicityamongresidentsof nearbyneighborhoodsaffectedby potential healthrisks.
Fact: Considerationof theMitsubishiCementCorporationprojectwasterminatedby mutual agreement of the Port District and Mitsubishi Cement Corporation.
Fact: In its public statement, the Port District expresseda willingness to re -open negotiations related to this proposal with Mitsubishi Cement Corporation in the future.
Fact: The Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project was terminated due to technical concerns around the availability of zero emission trucks capable of the loads required for cement deliveries.
Finding 10: ThecontroversysurroundingtheMitsubishiCementCorporationProject'spotential healtheffectsontheBarrioLoganneighborhoodandothernearbyresidentsdamagedthePort District' s community relations with thesecommunities and contributed to the decision to discontinue the project.
Finding 11: Oversightof theMitsubishi CementCorporationprojectby the City of SanDiegoor San DiegoCountygovernmentsmighthavegivengreaterpriorityto thehealthconcernsof community members and resulted in a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project' s evaluation process.
Coronado Cottages at the Cays Proposal
Fact: TheCottagesattheCaysdevelopmentproposalmetwith significantoppositionnot only from the Coronadomayor and city council, but alsofrom residentsandmembersof the CoronadoCays Homeowner'sAssociationrepresentingthecommunityof 1,200homes.
Fact: MaintainingfreeaccessbyCaliforniaresidentsto SanDiegoBayfor recreationaluseis often cited asan obligation of the public trust by the Port District.
Fact: Three of seven Port Commissioners voted to oppose the Cottages at the Cays development proposal, includingtheCity of Coronado'sPortCommissioner, theNationalCityPortCommissioner as well as one of three San Diego Port Commissioners.
Fact: TheCottagesattheCaysdevelopmentproposalwasconsistentwiththeproperty'sdesignation in thePortMasterPlanascommercialrecreationspaceasapprovedbytheCaliforniaCoastal Commission.
16 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Fact: TheCottagesattheCaysdevelopmentproposalwasnotconsistentwiththeproperty's designationasrecreationalopenspacein the more recentCalifornia CoastalCommission -unapproved Port Master Plan Update.
Fact: Without the approval of the California Coastal Commission, the Port District viewed the Coronado Cays Port Master Plan Update land use designation of recreational open space asnon- binding andpreliminary.
Fact: TheCoronadoMayor, CityCouncilmembersandresidentsof Coronadoaffectedbythe CottagesattheCaysdevelopmentproposalreliedonthepropertyusedesignationfor recreationalopen spaceadoptedmostrecentlyin the PortMasterPlanUpdatedocument, believingthis documentshould control useof property proposedfor the Cottagesat the Caysdevelopment.
Finding 12: The Port' s decision to approvethe Cottagesat the Cays developmentproposal could negativelyimpactaccessto SanDiegoBayandapprovingtheplanfavorsthosewillingorabletopay costly hotel ratestypical of the Coronado area.
Public Participation
Fact: PortCommissionerreportsandbriefingsto their city councilsonthe activitiesof thePort District, in publicly accessiblevenuessuchascity councilmeetingsdonot takeplaceonafrequentor regular basis.
Finding13: Givenapreferencefor informalchannelsof communicationby PortCity councilsand mayorswith theirappointedPortDistrictrepresentatives, neitherPortCommissionersnorPortCity Councilsmaintaincompletelyopenandtransparentrelationshipsallowingfor publicinvolvementor awareness of Port District activities.
Master Plan Documents and Updates
Fact: RatificationofPortMasterPlans, MasterPlanUpdatesorMasterPlanAmendmentsbyPort CitiesorCountyof SanDiegofor planningdistrictswiththeirjurisdictionisnotprohibitedbythePortAct.
Finding14: Initscurrentform, thePortMasterPlanandMasterPlanUpdatedocumentspublishedby the Port District areoverly complex, difficult to understandandtoo broad in scopeto foster meaningfulcomprehensionby PortCity residents, electedmunicipalor countyofficials.
Finding 1.5: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updatesor MasterPlan Amendments wouldallow residentsof PortCity PlanningdistrictsandSanDiegoCountyto acknowledgeand confirm their understanding of Port District development plans andprojects within their municipal and countyboundariesandprovide reliabledocumentsfor communitiesto plan for thefuture.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The2022/2023SanDiegoCounty Grand Jury recommendsthat the City Councilsof thecitiesof SanDiego, ChulaVista, Coronado, ImperialBeach, andNationalCity:
17 2022/ 2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) 23- 90: Enact ordinancesor policiesplacing a two -term limit on the number of termsthat aPort Commissionercanserve (asalreadyenactedfor theCityof Coronado). 23- 91: Institute ordinancesor formal policiesrequiring the appointed Commissionersfromeachcityberequiredto giveat aminimum, quarterly updatesto the City Councils at officially scheduledcity council meetings open to the public.
23- 92: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port MasterPlanfor Port District planningdistrictswithin eachcity'sboundaries. 23- 93: In consultation with the SanDiego County Board of Supervisors, explore and implement an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decisionby theSanDiegoCountyBoardof Supervisorsandtheelectedcity councils of the five Port Cities.
The 2022/2023SanDiegoCounty Grand Jury recommendsthat the County of SanDiegoBoard of Supervisors:
23- 94: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan by eachof three county supervisors for Port District planning districts within eachof three county supervisorial district boundaries.
23- 95: Direct the CountyOfficeof IntergovernmentalRelationsto lobby CaliforniaStatelegislatorsto introducelegislationenablingtheCountyof San Diego to assume oversight of the activities of the San Diego Unified Port District or decisions of the Board of Port Commissioners and share in the Port District' s duty as guardian of the public trust in the tidal and submergedlands of SanDiegoBay.
23- 96: Depending on the outcome of Recommendation ( 23AX, above), consider exploring and implementing an alternate form of governancefor the Port District allowing for participation in, andoversightby the SanDiego County Board of Supervisorsand the electedcity councilsof the five port cities.
The 2022/2023SanDiegoCounty Grand Jury recommendsthat SanDiegoUnified Port District Board of Commissioners:
23- 97: Instituteformal policiesor proceduresallowingfor appealof anyaction takenby theBoard of Port Commissioners, includingdecisions, ordinances, or project approvals.
18 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED NNE 7, 2023) 23- 98: Institute formal policiesto enablePort Citiesand Countyof SanDiegoto ratify the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendmentsto thePort Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city' s and county boundaries.
23- 99: DirectlyinformeachofthefiveCityCouncilsat officiallyscheduledCity Council meetings open to the public how the proposed updated Port Master Plan affects areas within their jurisdictional boundaries. 23- 100: To increase the coordination of Port District activities with the Port Cities and their staffs, institute a policy of including staff from eachof the five Port CitiesandCountyof SanDiegoon eachof thePort District'sadvisory committees.
23- 101: Postmeetingminutesandagendasof eachofthePortDistrict'sadvisorycommittees. 23- 102: In consultation with the City Councils of SanDiego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial BeachandNationalCity, considerplacingatwo -term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve ( as already enacted for the City of Coronado).
23- 103: Institute ordinancesor formal policiesrequiring the appointed Commissionersfrom eachcityberequiredto giveataminimum, quarterly updatesto the City Councils at officially scheduledcity council meetings open to the public.
23- 104: In consultation with the SanDiego County Board of Supervisors, explore an alternate form of governancefor the Port District allowing for participationin, andoversightofPort District activitiesanddecisionbythe SanDiegoCountyBoard of Supervisorsandthe electedcity councilsof the five Port Cities.
REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
TheCaliforniaPenalCode §933(c) requiresanypublicagencywhichtheGrandJuryhasreviewed, andaboutwhichit hasissuedafinal report, to commentto thePresidingJudgeof theSuperiorCourt onthefindingsandrecommendationspertainingtomattersunderthecontroloftheagency. Such commentshallbemadenolaterthan90daysaftertheGrandJurypublishesitsreport (filedwiththeClerk of the Court); exceptthat in the caseof areportcontainingfindingsandrecommendations pertainingtoadepartmentoragencyheadedbyanelectedCountyofficial (e.g. DistrictAttorney,. Sheriff, etc.), suchcommentshallbemadewithin60daystothePresidingJudgewith aninformation copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.
Furthermore, California Penal Code § 933. 05( a), (b), ( c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment( s) are to be made:
19 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023) a) Asto eachgrandjury finding, therespondingpersonorentityshallindicateoneofthe following:
1) TherespondentagreesMill thefinding
2) Therespondentdisagreeswhollyorpartiallywiththefinding; in whichcase theresponseshallspecifytheportion of the finding that is disputedand shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
b) Astoeachgrandjury recommendation, therespondingpersonorentityshallreportoneof the following actions:
1) Therecommendationhasbeenimplemented, withasummaryregardingtheimplemented action. 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 3) The recommendationrequires further analysis, with an explanation andthe scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the mattertobepreparedfordiscussionbytheofficerorheadoftheagency ordepartmentbeinginvestigatedorreviewed, includingthegoverning bodyof thepublic agencywhenapplicable. Thistime frameshallnot exceedsixmonthsfrom thedateof publicationof thegrandjury report. 4) The recommendationwill not be implementedbecauseit is not warrantedor is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
c) If afindingorrecommendationofthegrandjury addressesbudgetaryorpersonnelmatters of acountyagencyordepartmentheadedby anelectedofficer, boththeagencyor departmentheadandtheBoardof Supervisorsshallrespondif requestedbythegrand jury, buttheresponseoftheBoardof Supervisorsshalladdressonlythosebudgetaryor personnelmattersoverwhichit hassomedecision-makingauthority. Theresponseof the electedagencyor departmentheadshall addressall aspectsof the findings or recommendationsaffectinghis orheragencyor department.
Commentsto thePresidingJudgeof the SuperiorCourtin compliancewith thePenalCode §933.05are required from the:
Responding Agency Recommendations Date
City of SanDiego, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 City of Chula Vista, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 City of Imperial Beach, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 City of Coronado, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 City of National City, City Council 23- 90 through 23- 93 8/ 28/ 2023 County of San Diego,
Board of Supervisors
San Diego Unified Port District,
Board of Port Commissioners
23- 94 through 23- 96 8/ 28/ 2023
23- 97 through 23- 104 8/ 28/ 2023
20 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ( FILED JUNE 7, 2023)